Five years after the law forbidding the wearing of the Islamic scarf in public places in France (government administrations, schools) was passed, sixty-five French deputies are demanding a parliamentary investigation into the wearing of the burqa in France.  A burqa is a loose totally enveloping garment with veiled eyeholes through which the wearer can see (not much).

The man who started the movement, Andre Gerin, is a communist deputy from the Rhone.    He told reporters that he was disturbed to see more and more women wearing burqas, which he qualifies as "ambulatory prisons".  The burqa causes an increasing number of problems, for example, with photos for the national identity card and passports (identity card and passport photos require women to be unveiled).

Now, if I were a fledgling newspaper reporter writing an objective article, I would continue in this vein.  But I am not.  As I said in my first blog entry, I've earned the right to say "I", to have and to express my opinions, and stand up for them.

So here goes:  as undemocratic as it sounds, I say ban the burqa!   And I would urge those who say this stance is anti-Muslim to listen to France's undersecretary of urban policy, Fadela Amara,  a practicing Muslim  who grew up in the underprivileged neighborhoods where most of the women wearing burqas live.  

Amara, a blunt, outspoken, declared enemy of fundamentalism, says she approves the move for an investigation, and goes one step further: "I am for the total banning of the burqa in this country.  I am for the banning of this coffin that kills fundamental freedoms....The burqa is the sign of the concrete presence of fundamentalists on our territory. It is also the sign of the political instrumentalization of Islam."

For President Nicolas Sarkozy, who addressed the Parliament in Versailles this week, opposition to the burqa is not opposition to Muslims.  "The burqa is not a religious sign; it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women.  I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory."  

I want to throw up my arms in praise at this statement.  Some, though, would argue, in the name of religious freedom, that each person can do what he/she wants.  They would throw up their hands in horror at the very idea of lawmakers telling people what they can and can't wear. Why not ban nose rings and baggy pants while we're at it?

There's a difference, a big one.  The difference is that the women wearing those burqas aren't "free" in any way, shape, or form.  The very fact that they are covered from head to toe with only eyeholes or a slit with grills,  says it all.  How can you talk to that person? If you smile at her, how do you know if she smiles back?  How do you even know who's in there?  If a woman in a burqa picks up a child at school, how do you know who the woman is if you can't even see her?  Is she the mother?  How would you know?

Women wearing those burqas live with men who don't.  As Fadela Amara pointed out:  "These women are never single women."  That means that the husbands have total freedom of movement but that their wives cannot be seen - and can barely see.  They are totally cut off from "life" outside their home.  Is that fair?  Is that "freedom"?  

I'm having dinner soon with an American friend who, in the name of the American concept of religious freedom, is horrified by the French approach to the veil and the burqa, a paradox, considering that he is also a staunch defender of women's rights.   He, like Obama, is all for the wearing of the veil and, I would suppose, the burqa.   (I interpret his thoughts - if I turn out to be wrong and he tells me he agrees with the French position, I'll be back with my mea culpa).

 I voted for Obama and I love my friend but I say to them both:  "What's good for one country isn't necessarily for another."  Long before the burqa issue, France fought long and hard to rid its public schools of crucifixes in the classrooms of public schools.  The notion of a "secular space" is rooted in French history and tradition.  France prides itself on its secular stance, its "laïcité", a hard to pronounce word that means people are free to practice no religion at all or  whatever religion they want  -  but not in the public sphere which is neutral ground.    French presidents, you may note, never swear on the Bible, say "God bless you" at the end of a speech, or refer to their personal religious convictions ( Sarkozy is the first to have done so and it's not seen as to his credit). 

France has approximately five million Muslims (it's hard to know the exact figure because French law prohibits the collection of ethnic statistics). The vast majority are peaceful, law-abiding people who want to lead normal lives.  The women wearing burqas are a minority.  

In 2004, after a great national debate,  France passed a law forbidding the wearing of head scarves and conspicuous religious symbols in school.  

Five years have passed with no major problems.  

France does indeed have the most repressive legislation in Europe regarding the wearing of religious symbols in the public domain.

But when it comes to the burqa, other European countries have already passed laws that are much stricter.

The one I love the best is Luxembourg's law which goes like this:  "Other than at Carnival time, it is forbidden to be masked in the street".